(Cut to live feed) 

Broadcast journalist: “In a few minutes we’ll see the former President leaving his limousine to board his private plane for his trip to Washington to face his third felony indictment . . .” 

Onsite journalist: “Here in Washington, the courthouse is surrounded by barricades and police in preparation for the former President’s arrival. There is a scattering of protestors, some with signs supporting his reelection or “stop the steal” logos . . . 

 

The ubiquitous TV camaras and news reporters seem necessary to make real this dark moment of living history, specifically, the arrest of a former President for crimes that strike at the heart of the democratic republic he was elected to serve. His alleged crimes include (1) conspiring to defraud and impede a lawful Federal election, (2) conspiring to obstruct and impede the congressional process by which the votes cast in that election are counted and certified, (3) and conspiring to deprive American citizens of both the right to vote and to have their vote counted. These alleged crimes strike at the heart of a democracy, specifically, the peaceful transfer of power and the right of citizens to vote their conscience. Stated more bluntly, Donald J. Trump is being indicted for his attempt to overthrow America’s democratic republic, that is, Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  

 

Since this Federal indictment, the Fulton County District Attorney in Georgia has also indicted the former President for racketeering, specifically, for directing the actions of eighteen other defendants to overturn the results of the Presidential election in Georgia. In other words, the former President is being accused of crimes like those of a mob boss. As these words are being written, his “mug” shot is being shown on television screens around the world. The image of America as “the leader of the free world” has been smeared by this man, though the wheels of justice will now determine his and America’s fate. 

 

Of course, Donald J. Trump will have his day in court to appeal these conspiracy and obstruction charges. And there will be political debates and sensational reporting illuminating and distorting every aspect of Trump’s trials, including his trips to and from the court and his sitting in the docket. But his trial is more than journalistic cat bait or an evening broadcast “breaking news” segment. It will also recall and reprise that villainess pattern previously established by fascist dictators. Characteristically, they have staged bureaucratic coups accentuated with violence. Hitler, for example, as Chairman of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party took control of the Reichstag before his lieutenant burned it down. And Putin, as head of the FSB and Prime Minister staged a bureaucratic coup to assume the Presidency under the promise of staging a violent war against Chechnya for its alleged attacks on innocent Russians. ¹ Trump did likewise by means of an expansive conspiracy to overturn a democratic election coupled to a riotous assault on America’s Capital. Also, in an analogous manner, these petty dictators initially assume control over a politicized faction such as Germany’s National Socialist Party or Russia’s Unity Party or the current American Republican Party. Then they use violence or the threat of violence to gain absolute power. Naturally, most Americans would shrink from these comparisons, believing it unlikely our system of government could fall to a similar fate as Germany or Russia once did. Unfortunately, those of us who ignore history may well be doomed to repeat it.  

 

At the very least, we Americans must begin to recognize the similarities between these cult-like leaders of political movements. Hitler was a talented organizer with an ability to publicize his political philosophy, as presented in Mein Kampf. He was also ruthless and vengeful to all who opposed him, including his political and racists scapegoats. Putin is a wily manipulator who controls his gang of thieves by either granting them an unmerited share of his people’s wealth or showing them an exit out of a high-rise window. Since he controls the courts, any who oppose him or his policies face jail and hard labor, if not assassination. And, like Hitler, he also has his own political philosophy whereby he alone controls the vertical power system he described in his personal treatise. ² Although it would be difficult to equate Trump with the talents of either of these men, he does at least share their dictatorial characteristics. Stated more in American terms, he is a loutish embodiment of an archetypical mob boss who controls his acolytes with the promise of wealth/position/power. But those not sufficiently sycophantic, risks falling out of his favor. They may then be threatened with whatever vengeful punishment he can muster from verbal assaults, lawsuits, expulsion from the Trumpian orbit, or the threat of physical attacks from his more violent-oriented followers. In place of a political philosophy, he presents himself as the star of a MAGA cult. Like a center-ring P.T. Barnum, the great showman of glitz and glamor, he entertains with his bravado as the hero who promised to replace the “American carnage” he touted at his inauguration and to restore America’s lost greatness. For those who oppose him, he offers his personal scorn, the ire of his more rabid supporters, and/or his promise of the unwelcome attention of the IRS or DOJ, should he regain the Presidency and the opportunity to have his revenge. 

  “If you come for me, I’m coming for you.” (Donald Trump, 8/5/2023) 

Trump is that anti-hero who seeks only his own interests and whom you dare not cross, for he can be ruthless in his pursuits and vengeful to any who oppose him, as exemplified by his personal history. When his ailing father was on his death bed, he persuaded his ailing father to sign over control of the Trump estate to Donald Trump instead of his oldest son. Thereby, Donald assumed control of his father’s estate and disabused his siblings’ inheritance, though he was neither the oldest son nor the most competent sibling. During his business career, he bilked and outlasted some 3500-4000 civil lawsuits (as diversely reported). As President, he attacked those who disagreed with him and replaced public servants like Inspector Generals who did or might find fault with his Executive Administration. And he forged a similar trail of anti-social and self-serving behavior as he used the power of his office against all who opposed him—even to the extent of conspiring against the will of American citizens to hold onto the office he lost in a fair and legal election.  

 

Amid troubling times, with war in Europe, its impact on prospective famine in Africa, the fire and flood disasters resulting from global warming, and divisive civil/political unrest in many countries around the world, including the United States, what prospects exist for world peace and the health and safety of humanity? If we find ourselves in communities ostensibly determined by a dire fate and threatening circumstances, we could feel powerless and driven by forces outside of our control. But if, on the other hand, we discover our ability to inculcate human values into our culture and society, then we can change the course of history. Such change is more feasible in a democracy, but it is also achievable in other systems of government when like-minded people unite to demand equal justice, personal freedom, and the general welfare of all citizens. We may be born into established communities, but we can develop and must support those human values and their respective governing principles in our respective societies. In most cases, that choice is made easier by connecting with a common cultural heritage. In America, we can simply rediscover and reapply the values infused in our institutions and established by our founding documents. That reapplication process determines and assures the ongoing evolution of our democracy (reference “Revolution, Evolution, Devolution). 

 

In the many countries I have been blessed to encounter personally, I have consistently found in their citizens a common ground of human values. We do not just share a common DNA, but a shared experience of our world and of each other. Though cultures and languages may differ, we feel hurt and pleasure the same way. And we can also relate to each other as fellow human beings, born of women, with a common experience of life and of our expectant deaths. Unfortunately, like the animals from which our species evolved, we can also compete against each other for territory, resources, food, and/or herd dominance in the form of wars of conquest or insurrection. The choice between living in harmony with fellow humans and competing with them for dominance begins with an individual decision. And that decision contributes to the type of society it evokes, like a democracy of equals rather than a pre-established stratification of power and position—the very condition that promotes divisive and competing factions. The difference seems to be whether we choose to relate to others as fellow human beings or to compete with them. The latter presumes a hierarchy that must be scaled to become the “top dog.” Otherwise, we become “losers,” governed by the “winners” and doomed to a lesser class. Our lives will then be more likely determined by the facts of our birth and circumstances. But to revolt or struggle against the inertia of a fixed communal existence is fruitless without a purpose, that is, the guiding principles of a society. Democracies are societies where morally driven principles form the basis for law and the rights of individuals to pursue their lives’ goals. Democracies are born of reason, whereas communities merely reflect the facts of time and circumstances. They can be transformed, however, by actions inspired by a society supported by guiding principles, such as those inherent in a democracy.  

 

America fought a Civil War to re-establish one of its founding principles: “that all men (sic) are created equal . . . endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights . . . (of) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But a society built on this principle must contend with human nature. Whether focused on either preventing evil or supporting good, ³ our kind must come together on primary principles or forever contest our power over each other. The basic principles of the American republic are good, wherein evil is referenced by the absence or violation of the good. But we often dive into the muddy pool of fighting a non-descript evil—which is too often identified ubiquitously with the “other,” like the non-white, the immigrant, the gay, the Jew, the non-male (i.e., a dysfunctional view of womankind), the Democrat, or the Republican. This fight can never be won for it is fought on negative terms, that is, the elimination of whatever is labelled “evil.” Instead, the real power of a democracy is its emphasis on what is good, that is, the principles that assure our rights, our liberties, and our general welfare as fellow human beings. We are a rules-based democracy to the extent that our laws assure these principles are protected and enforced. And, of course, enforcement means offenders are held accountable. Broadcasting Donald Trump’s apparent lawlessness as some kind of gamesmanship, instead of attempts to violate our laws and his oath of office, is a disservice to the principles of our democracy. Instead, we should celebrate the fact that he will face judgement before a jury of his peers in accordance with the principles of our democracy. If found guilty, he will be held accountable, and our founding principles will be vindicated. 

 

Some decades ago, it was common for the two political parties to argue over policies, even to the point of questioning each other’s patriotism. Whether supportive of capitalist tycoons or the hoi polloi, the parties argued over issues of budget deficits, crime prevention/punishment, regulated markets/free trade, self-serving foreign relations/general world order, or a realistic definition of fair taxation. But both political parties would then attempt to justify their differences in terms of the general welfare. That guiding principle allowed them to agree on some measure of common benefit wherein compromise preserved the general welfare. Were these resolutions always perfect? Of course not, but over time, voters modified them at the polls. Americans seldom realize difficult change in one swell swoop. It took 132 years before women gained the right to vote. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts required over a hundred years to reach fruition. But major changes like these seemed always to require popular social movements to galvanize the electorate to demand changes that extended democratic rights in the face of previously unquestioned suppression. Why does that system of progressive change now seem anachronistic?  

 

I believe the answer to this question rests in the rise of nationalism, an interesting word, derived from the past participle of nasci, “to be born.” Just as each of us is born into a specific community, we can experience our lives under the influence of our nation as the broader community. But democracy demands more of us than mere assimilation into a staid moment in history. It must evolve, thereby requiring an electorate and citizens willing to address the common good in a changing environment. The task of a successful democracy is to mature and adjust to changing circumstances, for example, to assimilate migrants and technological evolution, to address health crises, global warming, ideological/philosophical differences, international relationship challenges/dangers, and so forth. In a previous blog, America’s quest for a just society was related as an ongoing project (reference “Democracy and the Just Society”). In 1870, our Congress established comprehensive public education to address this ongoing project of our democracy. After the Civil War, it became apparent to our legislators that the assimilation of slaves and the changes required by the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) would require a reasoned and informed electorate. But nationalism, as understood and practiced by autocrats and their supporters, is a form of preservation, not evolution. It is a particularly self-serving ideology for an autocrat who chooses to retain position and power indefinitely. Putin, for example, wants to restore the Russian empire of the 19th century and secure his position as its czar-like leader for the duration of his life. Likewise, Trump wants to overturn the results of the last election and retain the Presidency for the remainder of his life. Both MAGA and Russian imperialism are nationalist “fever dreams” with harrowing promises for the futures of Americans and Russians.  

 

Nationalism is, and has always been, the mechanism for men such as Hitler, Putin, and Trump to assume executive power and retain it by whatever means available. While Hitler and Putin chose suppression and conquest as their means to hold and extend their executive power, Trump chose subversion of democratic institutions, including a free election, in his attempt to extend his presidency. If he had succeeded, would he have accepted the results of any future election? Did either Hitler or Putin ever do so? In fact, it is more likely that Trump and Putin would have agreed to support each other’s self-interests on the world stage. Did Trump not support Putin’s efforts to undermine Ukraine’s turn toward democracy and to blame Ukraine instead of Russia for undermining Hilary Clinton’s campaign in support of Trump’s? And did not Putin explicitly state his preference for the Trump presidency and back up that preference by ordering a massive cyberattack in support of his campaign. The Mueller Report provides massive evidence of that fact. If re-elected, Trump has been reported to have told his former colleagues in office that he would remove America’s support for NATO. Would NATO then be able to contend with Putin’s desire to annex Ukraine in the face of his threat of a World War III without the support of America? Why then would Putin be satisfied to add just Ukraine to his conquest of Chechnya, Georgia, or Syria? What would stop him from securing Moldovia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, or even the jewel of Poland that has repeatedly been coveted by Russian autocrats. And what would stop Trump from securing permanent control over America’s electoral system, from extending voter suppression laws and gerrymandering to passing Federal legislation to authorize Republican State Legislators to name candidates for the Electoral College. Imagine a world intimidated by the two largest nuclear states under the leadership of the Trump-Putin alliance.  

 

Fortunately, it is not likely that the American electorate will return Trump to the Presidency. He is a proven liar who claims his innocence by his firm belief in his lies. Belief and reality do not exist together in his mindset. Nevertheless, he has been twice impeached, fourfold indicted, and held liable for rape. But, even if he loses his reelection, America faces the grim reality of recovering from what the Republican Party has wrought on the American democracy: mischievously tilting State elections in its favor by voter suppression and gerrymandering and by manipulating Congressional committees to misuse their power to engage in fruitless and evidence-deprived attacks on elected Democrats. We must salvage the Republican Party from its takeover by a fringe group who took advantage of the Party’s efforts to gain control without winning the majority vote. There are many former Republicans who would and should disavow its current leadership. Many of them stood firm on their patriotic values by supporting Trump’s impeachment, by blocking his illegal attempts to subvert a federal election, and by abetting his felony indictments with their honest testimony.  

 

Nevertheless, America now stares down a dark fate, not unlike what it faced in its past. We overcame a monarchy and a civil insurrection in our attempts to gain independence and a fully democratic republic. We have battled the myriad forces of discrimination that have always inflicted humankind. And that battle continues, but not without its incremental successes. What we now face, however, is a serious backlash from the forces of racial prejudice, misogyny, hate crimes, divisive politics, and—most threatening—an autocratic overthrow of our democracy. We must now support and extend our democracy or unwittingly reprise a dark history our forebears sacrificed so much to overcome. Let us re-engage that pledge that used to be made in every classroom daily throughout our country: 

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 

 

_______________________________________ 

1   Of course, that war’s pretense was false since those attacks were committed by Putin’s FSB (reference the fifth paragraph in “The Rapacious Public Servant”). 

2   For more specific information on Putin’s style of governance, check out “Is War in Europe Inevitable?” 

3 This is a reference to Nietzsche’s master versus slave morality wherein he depicts the emphasis on “good” or “evil,” respectively.